File Format:

Adobe Reader

In the United Nations
The American League
for Puerto Rico's Independence
vs.
The United States of America
THE AMERICAN LEAGUE
FOR PUERTO RICO'S INDEPENDENCE
( INCORPORATED)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DR. RACHEL DAVIS DUBOIS
REV. DONALD HARRINGTON
A. PHILIP RANDOLPH
DR. J. HOLMES SMITH
RICHARD J. WALSH
The Hon. Trygve Lie
Secretary-General of the United Nations
New York, N. Y.
" J. HOLMES SMITH. CHAIRMAN
RUTH M. REYNOLDS. SECRETARY
PHONE LEHIGH 4-9761
2013 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK 35. N. Y.
July 22, 1946
My dear Sir:
The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence, through its Board of Directors, respectfully re­quests
you to lay before th~ United Nations for appropriate action its complaint that the Congress of the United
States has been grossly negligent in continuing, after forty-eight years, to hold in political and military subjec'
tion the people of Puerto Rico.
This is perhaps the first instance of citizens of a great power appealing to the United Nations to take
action critical of the domination of their own nation over another. All of the members of the American League
for Puerto Rico's Independence are" citizens of the United States usually described as liberals. None of us is
a Puerto Rican. We are moved to this extraordinary step by the fact that the pleas of President Roosevelt and
President Truman, the unanimous demand of th~ Legislature of Puerto Rico, the formal petitions of a great
number of the weightiest Latin American bodies, official and unofficial, and various other voices including that
of our own League, have failed to move the Congress of the United States to enc! its imperialistic regime over
the 2,100,000 Puerto Ricans.
We are also emboldened to make this appeal to the' United Nations by the conviction that the decision
in congressional circles not to act thIS year on the issue of Puerto Rico's political status is symptomatic of one of
the most sinister factors in the international situation. There is no greater menace to the peace of the world in
this perilous Atomic Age than the combination of naive self,righteousness and exercise of power over others
which characterizes so much of our nation's foreign relations today. For: that reason we appeal through you,
Sir, directly to the United Nations, as we have appealed and will continue to appeal through all available
channels to the conscience of our own America.
We charge that the treatment of Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United States is in violation of
the United Nations Charter.
FIRST, it is contrary to the purposes set forth in the Preamble to the Charter, namely, "to establish
conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of interna'
tional law can be maintained" and "to develop friendly relations among nfitions based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
We charge, and shall undertake to show in the appended brief, that the continued domination of
Puerto Rico by the United States violates every canon of justice between peoples and tends to weuen the spirit
of justice internationally.
We contend that this persistel'lt subjection of Puerto Rico violates the obligations arising from the Treaty
of Paris between the United States and Spain in 1899, the Atlantic Charter, and other pledges given during the
past half-century. It thus weakens respect for international agreements.
We further hold that the inconsistency of this ty ranny with the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States and with the Monroe Doctrine weakens confidence in the integrity of this
countlY, a factor of vital moment to the peace of the world.
SECONDLY, the continued subjection of the people of Puerto Rico violates the "Declaration Regarding
Non-Self-Governing Territories" set forth in Chapter 11, Article 73 of the Charter:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration
of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize
the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept
as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international
peace and security established by the prese'llt Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these
territories, and, to this end:
a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political,
economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection
against abuses;
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples,
and to assist them in the progressive developme'nt of their free political institutions, according
to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of
advancemrnt.
We charge, and shall undertake to show, that by its gross neglect in this matter for many years, including
the period since its adherence to the United 'Nations Charter, the United States Congress has failed to "accept
as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost ... the well,being of the inhabitants" of Puerto Rico
"and, to this end to develop self,government, to take due account of the political aspirations" of the people of
Puerto Rico, "and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions" according
to their "stage of advancement." We shall submit abundant evidence to show that there can be no excuse on
the grounds that the "stage of advancement" of the people of Puerto Rico does not warrant their self,govern'
ment; there can be no doubt of their political maturity and competence.
The United States Congress has not fulfilled the provisions of point (a) above, V:;ith reference to "due
respect for the culture of the people concerned" and their "economic advancement." The nature of our imper'
ialism in Puerto Rico has been not. only military and political but also economic and cultural.
Furthermore, the American regime in the island, especially during the past decade, has exacted a heavy
price for their ·political convictions from the most uncompromising fighters for the independence of Puerto
Rico, the Nationalists who, like the patriots of the Indian National Congress, have long refused to acknow'
ledge the authority of, or to collaborate with, that foreign domination.
It is ot serious moment that the ignoring of the clear implications of the Atlantic Charter and other
apressions of the declared aims of the recent war in te rms of freedom for all peoples in a grievous breach of
faith with tens of thousands of Puerto Rican veterans who risked their lives in that conflict.
We submit 'that th6 urgent current task of the making of the peace, to say nothing of its maintenance, is
being handicapped by the failure of the Congress of the United States to liquidate American imperialism in
Puerto Rico. 'The United States is the only nation in this hemisphere which continues to hold in subjection a
sister nation.
It is an ironical fact that Puerto Rico enjoyed a much greater degree of self,government in relation to
Spain in 1897 than she does under the United States a half,century later. Consider Resident,Commissioner Piii,
era's description of his country's political subjection tad ay. (Brief, page 2) We cannot forbear saying, with a
humiliating sense of the extent to which they represent us, that if a spark of the true spirit of liberty had
remained in the descendants of Patrick Henry and Thomas. Jefferson who sat in the House of Representatives
on March 19 of this year, they would have been stirred to take prompt atoning action by Commissioner Piiiero's
reminder of our tyranny. Because there has been the opposite response it is necessary that we bring out into the
open something of the history of that tyranny in the ~ope that all sense of justice is not dead in our' own
American people and in the United 'Nations.
For forty'eight years Puerto Rico has been under a despotism by law of the Unite'd States Congress. This
law has degraded, and continues to degrade, the presidency by compelling the Chief Executive to enforce that
tyranny. It has corrupted the judiciary by expecting it to find constitutional sanction for that domination.
During the decades of our occupation of Puerto Rico, Americans have been known to crusade for the
freedom of Cuba, Ireland, Belgium, India, Republican Spain, Armenia, Korea, and many other dominated coun'
tries. They have recently expressed grave concern over Iran, Bulgaria, Greece and Indonesia. Indeed, the cases of
Iran and Indonesia have claimed considerable attention from the United 'Nations itself. The patriots of Puerto
Rico and the friends of freedom and democracy in this country and around the world have a right to expect
the United 'Nations to show the same concern in the case of Puerto Rico.
Ten years ago the United States Congress enacted legislation for the independence of the Philippines,
recently celebrated. India is on the threshold of complete self,government. We are encouraged to believe that,
through the good offices of the United 'Nations and through the awakened conscience of America there will
come a further triumph of the spirit of freedom in prompt congressional action for the independence of Puerto
Rim.
jhs,emp
Respectfully yours,
The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence
By ]. Holmes Smith, Chairman.
BRIEF
In Support of an Appeal to the United Nations by the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence Re,
garding the Violation of the United Nations Charter by the United States Through Its Continued Domination
of Puerto Rico.
An Expression of American Concern
The Editor of the 'New Yor1{ 'Times drew attention to the gravity of this matter in an editorial on
"Puerto Rico's Status" in the issue of March 11, 1946:
The present controversy between Governor Tugwell of Puerto Rico and the insular
legislature over the expressed desire of the Puerto Ricans to have a 'Voice in the selection
of Mr. Tugwell's successor and their demand for a plebiscite on their future political status
call attention anew to the colonial problem facing the United States. In this problem Congress
seems to take only a cursory interest. Yet it is one we cannot dodge indefinitely if we are to
live up to our best traditions, and if we are to do justice to the peoples who became our
wards during our imperialist days at the close of the last century and who now seek the
opportunity to decide their o~ destinies.
Governor Tugwell's position in vetoing the two biIls--both of which will probably be
passed over his veto--is that the Puerto Ricans are only antagoniz.ing Congress and jeopardi:dng
their chances for congressional action in taking such positive action to call attention to their
-aspirations. This a.ppears to be a realistic and accurate evaluation of the situation. If it is,
then it is equally an indictment of Congress.
The Editor then mentions the fact that the la te President Roosevelt and President Truman both have
addressed special messages to Congress over the last three years urging passage of legislation on this issue. The
editorial continues:
The question of what we shall do with our colonial empire must seem remote to the
average citize'n. But if we ourselves are not aware of it, we may be sure the rest of the world is.
We cannot alik other nations to grant independence or autonomy to their colonies if our
own Congress is insensitive to the aspira.tion of the people of our possessions. Even a benign
rule such as ours has been generally i'n the Philippines, in Puerto Rico, in Guam and in Samoa
is not good enough. if it denies to the peoples of our colonies that right to decide their own
destinies to which the great majority 'Of the people of this country are whole-heartedly dedicated.
Puerto Rico·s Complaint
This rare expression of American concern over 0 ur perennial blind'spot evoked a letter to the 'Times
from the Hon. Jesus T. Piiiero, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington. Senor Pinero said,
in part:
Your editorial of Monday, March 11, 1946, on Puerto Rico's Status, turned the spotlight
once more again on the desire of 2',000,000 American citizens in Puerto Rico for a voice in
the selection of their governor a'nd other public officials, and in the determination of their
future political status.
You say that the question of what we Americans shall do with our oolonial e~pire must
seem remote to the average citizen. Puerto Ricans understand that; they know that Americans
living in Nevada are perhapli just as unaware of conditions in Vermont as citizens in Ten'nessee
are of conditions in South Dakota. But they are puzzled by the continued protestations of
our government in Washington agai'nst the failure of other governments elsewhere situated
in the world to give dependent peoples a voice in the selection of their governing officials,
when deapite the long sustained demands of Puerto Rican leaders, they as American citizens
must accept as their Chief Eecutive a man appointed by the Preside'nt and confirmed by the
United States Senate.
Puerto Ricans do not vote for President; they have no representative in the Senate; they
have a Resident Commissioner in the House, elected by popular vote, who' has a voice but no
Yote in Congress . . .
Under the Organic Act, an act of Congress which is the Puerto Rica'll constitution and
which no Puerto Rican had a voice in accepting or rejecting, the President appoints our
Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, and Commissioner of Education ... Presidential appoint'
ments, with United States Senate confirmatio'n, make up, also, our insular Supreme Court ...
Our bicameral legislature, elected by popular vote, can pass laws which are subject to three
forms of veto: first, the l'residentially appointed Governor can veto our laws; second, the
legislature then can pass them over his veto by a two,thirds vote, but the Governor can appeat
to the President who can kill any bill; and third, if a law on the books should be displeasing
to any Member of Congress, that Membt>r can work for its repeal by the Congress-without
any voting representative of the Puerto Rican people to oppose such action.
A commission of the Puerto Rican Legislature has been in existence for more than a year for the purpose
of pressing the issue of Puerto Rico's permanent political status upon the United States Congress. We have been
told by a member of the commission that during the dec ade 1935,1944 60% of the bills passed by the Puerto
Rican legislature were killed by American veto. I
On March 19, 1946, Commissioner Pinero received the unanimous consent required to enable him to
speak briefly in the United States House of Representatives. He said:
Mr. Speaker, in the past few days two great powers have moved to solve the problems
of dependent people. One-1Ja1f of the world's population is made up of dependent peoples under
some form of colonial rule. These peoples long have been denied _ a voice in the
determi'nation of their destinies.
Last week the Republic of France granted to its colonial islands of Martinique and
Guadaloupe in the Atlantic, and to the island of Reunion in the Pacific, equal status with the
departments of France.
About the same time Prime Minister Clement Attlee of Great Britain announced that the
people of India would be given the opportunity to decide by majority whether they wished
their full independence. or some form of status that would permit them to remain within the
British Commonwealth.
This great democratic Republic of ours was founded by our forefathers when they decided
to end an intolerant rule and become free and independent peoples. Formation of the Thirteen
Original States marked the birth of this great sovereign Republic, the United States of America.
Ironically, in view of our own origin as a free nation, we today hold '5Overeignty over
dependent peoples, all of them American citizens, but denied the rights that American citizenship
symbolizes to the rest of the world. We have under our flag second- and third-class citizens.
This is not the American way; this continued refusal to grant full equality in sharing the
benefits of our traditional American principles of freedom and equality for all is inimical to
our way of life as we profess to defend it in our policy toward peoples similarly situated in
other parts of the world.
Embarrassing Facts
The plea of this spokesman of frustrated Puerto Rico apparently fell on ears long deaf to the cry for
justice. Congressional leaders have given the excuse that there is no' time this year to take up this issue. But
Puerto Ricans cannot forget, as Congress should not, that the history of our imperialism in Puerto Rico runs
back no less than forty-eight years. It- is the solemn tru th that "the United States is the only country in the
world still holding under its sway a people and a coun try which definitely and unmixedly belongs to western
civilization and to a branch of that civilization which is not that of the ruling country." This embarrassing
fact was called to our attention by Dr. Salvador Perea, member of the Insular Committee of the Puerto
Rican Independence Party, in a memorandum submitted to the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs
of the United States Senate, April 23, 1945.
Our Promises and Declared Political Ideals
The United States took Puerto Rico by conquest in 1898. In our war propaganda it was declared that
we were liberating Puerto Rico from Spain along with Cuba. General Nelson Miles, leading the United
States army of occupation, issued a fulsome proclama tion to the people of the island: "The people of the
United States in the cause of liberty, justice, and hum anity ... come bearing the banner of free.dom, inspired
by a noble purpose . . . to bring you protection not on ly to yourselves, but to your property, to promote your
prosperity, and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our gavernment
... and to give all withiri the control of its military and naval forces the advantages and blessings of enlightened
civilization." (Italics ours. J.H.S.)
It is repugnant to every ideal expressed in the American Declaration of Independence to think of the
United States seizing and maintaining colonies. Furthermore, as the eminent historian, James Truslow Adams,
declares in 'The Epic of America, "The Constitution was silent as to any powers to acquire foreign territory
and,. if acquired, as to how to administer it. When Jefferson had been confronted with the need for instant
decision whether to take the Louisiana Territory when offered or lose it for the nation, he took it, but believ­ing
the action to be unconstitutional and with the expectation that an amendment to the Constitution would
be made validating it. None ever was, and John Quincy Adams was equally convinced that we had no con'
stitt;tional right whatever to incorporate within our Government a foreign sovereign state such as Texas. Both
statesmen, and those who believed with them, would appear to have been right, unless the wording of the Con-
Ititution may be So stretched as to cover anything under heaven desired by.us." .
In 1898 it was recognized that it would be in violation of the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine
promulgated by Henry Clay as Secretary of State for th e United States to continue to hold Puerto Rico and
make a colony of her.
Therefore, in spite of the imperialist urge for ex pansion under the slogan of "manifest destiny" and in
.spite of the precedent of imperialist conquest in the Mexican War, there was a definite attempt to cloak the
seizure of Puerto Rico with the aspect of temporary guardianship. This was expressed not only in the war
propaganda, but also in the Treaty of Paris at the close of the Spanish-American war, which sought to give
legal dignity to the conquest.
A High-Handed Treaty
But this provision of the treaty was patently high-handed because Spain had no legal right to transfer
Puerto Rico to any other power. The autonomy charter granted to Puerto Rico by Spain a year before the
war distinctly specified that no change in the political re lationship of the two nations could be made without
the approval of the Parliament of Puerto Rico. The Parliament, however, was dissolved by the Commander-in­Chief
of the occupying forces of the United States th e summer previous to the making of the treaty. Inciden­tally,
Senator Brewster of Maine, in the Senate Committee hearings referred to, remarked that "the 'Treaty of
Paris violates the Declaration of Independence."
Tyranny and Terrorism
Tyranny can be maintained only by terrorism, naked or disguised. Especially during the past decade haa
the Yankee regime' tried to crush the most uncompromising fighters for freedom in Puerto Rico.
Ever 'since the United States entered their homeland in 1898, Puerto Rican patriots have cried aloud
for independence. Led.by Munoz Rivera, father of Munoz Marin of the Popular Party now in power, and Jose
de Diego, world famous poet, they coined the phrase "within the regime against the re-gime." Like many of the
leaders of the present-day Congress for Independence, they accepted government posts, cooperated fully with
the invading power, and endeavored to "bore from within". They enjoyed a large popular following, a high
degree of governmental tolerance, and little effectiveness.
The Nationalist Party arose during the 1920's. It takes the position that the American occupation is
illegal, and that therefore the United States has no jurisdiction over Puerto Rico or any Puerto Rican outside
<:ontinental United States. Its members refuse not only to recognize the authority of the United States Gov­ernment,
but also to hold government positions and to participate in elections. They request nothing of the
United States Government except that it leave Puerto Rico, and that they demand unequivocally. (This
position is identical with that long taken by the India n National Congress in relation to Great Britain.) The
Nationalists declare, however, that they are eager' to establish by treaty the most harmonious good-neighborly
relationship after independence is recognized. During the 1930's they sponsored dramatic demonstrations of their
desire for Puerto Rico's independence, as well as mass meetings allegedly drawing tens of thousands of
people. Although their feeling was intensely expressed, the Nationalists exhibited a high degree of self-control
under provocation. In no public demonstration under- their sponsorship was any act of violence committed, ac­cording
to the American Civil Liberties Union Commission of 1937, although there was an occasiona.l individual
outbreak of vengeance on the part of undisciplined Nationalist youths.
The Nationalist Party worked without effective governmental interference until Major General Blanton
Winship of Georgia became Puerto Rico's governor. Then a concerted effort was made to discredit the Nation­alists
and to imprison their leadership. A series of killings by the police, the responsibility for which the govern­ment
tried to put on the N.ationalists, culminated in the Ponce Massacre on Palm Sunday, 1937. On this oc­casion
21 people were killed and more than two hundred were wounded when the American-controlled COil'
stabulary machine-gunned a completely unarmed procession of Nationalists marching to a cathedral. An Amer­ican
Civil Liberties Union Commission headed by Arthur Garfield Hays, which investigated this crime, com­pletely
exonerated the Nationalists and laid the responsibility not only for the massacre but also for the falsi­fication
of his report to Washington squarely at the door of the American Governor.
Much of the Nationalist leadership had already been imprisoned. The brilliant, Harvard-educated
President of the Party, Don Pedro Albizu Campos, along with seven others, had been imprisoned in 1936 on
charges of "conspiring to overthrow the United States Government by force"! According to the testimony
of Rockwell Kent, the renowned artist, and Elmer Ellsworth, an American planter, now a member of 'the
Puerto Rican legislature, who was one of the ju~ors, these men were tried by a hand-picked jury predetermined
to convict them. The United States Judge in Puerto Rico during this whole period has been Judge Robert A.
Cooper, a former governor of South Carolina. It may be added that Albizu Campos and his compatriots have
more than .once had to denounce the racism which certain of their "conquerors" sought to transplant to Puerto
Rico.
The treatment undergone by Don Pedro Albizu Campos for six years in Atlanta Penitentiary resulted
in the shattering of his health which kept him confined to a New York hospital bed for more than two years,
and has left him after an additional year a semi-invalid physically. He is technically still on probation, although
he refuses to comply with probation' regulations. How must Latin America feel about our treating in this
way the man whom Gabriela Mistral of Chile, recent Nobel prize winner, has called "the greatest Spanish-Amer­ican?"
Certain other Nationalist leaders who have completely fulfilled the conditions of their sentences are
nevertheless kept in illegal exile in this country. .
Blanton Winship is gone from Puerto Rico, but government persecution of these determined spokesmen
for freedom continues. In keeping with their policy of refusing to recognize the authority of the United
States Government over themselves or their country, the Nationalists in 1941 in open convention unanimously
agreed not to cooperate with the compulsory military service of the United States, which in Puerto Rico brazenly
commanded subject people to fight for the liberation of lands across the sea and now forces them to police sub­jugated
peoples while their own nation remains in bondage! Britain did not attempt to draft the people of
India-! Don Ramon Medina Ramirez, interim President of the Party, was imprisoned on charges of "con­spiring
to obstruct Selective Service". His five sons, one of them totally blind, and some 70 other Nationalist
youths·have since followed him to prison for refusing compulsory military service. There they have been treated
as common criminals and in many instances have suffered cruel punitive measures. Such is the price American
"subjects" in Puerto Rico, who refuse to be subjected in spirit, have paid for acting according to their con­victions.
Cultural Imperialism
At this moment President Truman is weighing the question of vetoing a bill providing for instruction of
Puerto Rican pupils in the public schools of the island in their native Spanish. This bill was unanimously passed
by the Puerto Rican Legislature, 'vetoed by Governor Tugwell, and has since been re-passed unanimously. Yet it
mav be nullified by the action or even the inaction of a foreigner to Puerto Rico who has had a chance to study
in his native tongue in the public schools of the United States far less about Puerto Rico than the pupils of
Puerto'Rico have been compelled to study, in the English language, about Missouri. Such is the cultural im­perialism
of the United States over Puerto Rico that a single individual, Commissioner of Education, appointed
by the President, has dictatorial power over every phase of public instruction in the island.
Economic Imperialism
While Puerto Rico was being held down politically, she was being exploited economically. Her healthily
diversified farming was changed into a ruinous one-crop economy. Absentee sugar kings came to own nearly
two-thirds of the cultivated land. The four gigantic sugar companies were dominated by North American capi~
tal. The average income of the Puerto Rican peasant was under forty cents a day, while three of the four big~
gest sugar companies .averaged about 12'0/0 annually on capital investment.
Recently, under the progressive economic reforms of the Popular Party, there has been some improve'
ment, but no basic change, for all Puerto Rican trade is subject to the United States tariff and coastwise shipping
laws which protect American exploiters but work in the main to the detriment of the Puerto Rican people. For
example, they prevent the development of any export crop for which there is little demand in the United States.
The coffee industry, which formerly furnished the island's largest export crop, has been virtually dead since
1898. These laws also make the development of home ind ustries difficult, for they permit American industrialists
to maintain in Puerto Rico a monopoly and junk market which they can manipulate at will. A few industries
were started because of war'time shipping conditions, but even government apologists do not expect them to
survive the return to peace'time economy unless they are continuously subsidized by the insular budget. Further,
these tariff and shipping laws, together with the one-crop economy which they help sustain, make it necessary
for the Puerto Ricans to import almost all their food from the United States, the world's highest market, at
prices averaging 25% higher than those paid in New York City for the same produce.
There has been an imperialistic pattern of corru ption of Puerto Rican youth by a combination of terror'
ism and economic misery. In Puerto Rico, as we have seen it in India, there is the lure of patronage in an
economy in which for many a family jobs are literally a matter of life and death. In the case of a powerful
nation like the United Stat:s over against an economically weak one like Puerto Rico the temptation to become
collaborationists must be almost irresistible.
Broken Pledges
It should vitally concern the United }{ations if the nation which, more than any other, is identified with
the beginnings of this organization for the maintenance of international peace, shows that its pledges cannot
be trusted. Who can deny that distrust plagues the United }{ations today, imperiling its effectiveness, if not its
very survival? In the matter of the one flagrant instance of outright American political imperialism, the domin'
ation of Puerto Rico, we have a string of broken pled ges that must be disillusioning to our world neighbors.
And a state of international distrust is too near to a sta te of war to justify our ignoring it in the Atomic Age.
. We have quoted the pompous proclamation of General Nelson Miles and referred to the war propaganda
of 1898 to the effect that we were bringing the blessings of liberation (and of course those of "civilization"!)
to Puerto Rico, who had been struggling for full freedom from Spain by the side of her sister, Cuba. Through
the years, therefore, Puerto Rico was kept on "treaty status", as an unincorporated territory. Puerto Ricans, con'
sequently were forced to believe that since keeping their nation in subjection was repugnant to the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution, and to the Monroe Doctrine, which implied no colonization in this
hemisphere, and since it became clear that there was no thought of welcoming her into statehood, the alterna'
tive must be independence. By 1904 many Puerto Ricans realized that statehood was not feasible, and the
Unionist Party was founded with a platform of indepen dence.
It was in 1919, on February 12, that Felix Cordova Davila, then' Resident Commissioner, made a speech
on the floor of the House of Representatives pleading for the resolving of the question of status for Puerto Rico.
He urged that, if Congress was not going to grant statehood it ought immediately to grant independence. Ten
years ago a bill for Puerto Rico's independence was introduced into the United States Senate by Senator Mil,
lard E. Tydings, sponsor of the present bill and veteran chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories and
Insular Affairs. This was shrewdly used at the time to ju stify oqr Gestapo treatment of non-cooperating Puerto
Rican patriots, who were demanding independence, on the grounds that they were impatient extremists, even
terrorists.
Puerto Rican War Veterans Deceived
Four years ago the President of the United States joined in declaring in the Atlantic Charter that it
was the settled purpose of the war effort to see that the colonial peoples of the world received their birthright
of self-government. Some 60,000 Puerto Rican veterans risked their lives with this understanding.
In the Hearings on the Tydings Bill for Puerto Rico's Independence on April 24, 1945 Senor Antonio
Ayuso testified as follows:
I have received, as editor of the paper (El Imparcial. the largest daily in Puerto Rioo)
. hundreds of letters saying that they are gladly fighting for the United States because they
think that the success of the armies of the United States will mean liberty and indepe'ndence
to Puerto Rico.
Senator Luis Munoz Marin, President of the Senate of Puerto Rico and head of the powerful Popular Party,
said in a radio interview in Washington on May 6 of this year,
60,000 Puerto Ricans served in the armed forces. They defended to the best of their
ability not only the national integrity of the United States, but the moral integrity of their
word pledged to democracy, self-determination and the "four freedoms". Even the Germans
and the Japanese will have these rights later on. It seems clear that we Puerto Ricans ought
to have them now. We've earned them.
Resident Commissioner Pifiero, in his letter of March 12, 1946 to the New York Times said,
More than 60,000 of our young men fought in the war against Germany and Japan.
Some were killed, others wounded-many were decorated for their contributions to our victory.
When men were being drafted elsewhere, volunteers were filling Puerto Rico's quota under the
:;elective Service Act. (Not entirely, but largely. Poverty and unemployment were factors.­J.
H.S.) That Act, incidentally, applied to Puerto Rican men, but no elected representative
of the people had a voice or vote in its enactment in Congress.
Two years ago the platform of the Democratic Party, now in power in the United States, promised legis­lation
for "the fullest measure of self-government to Puerto Rico", pointedly excluding it from statehood prom­ised
to Hawaii and Alaska. Thus by direct implication Puerto Rico was promised independence by the party
whose spokesmen in Congress nearly two years later say that they have no time to implement that promise.
More than a year ago hearings totaling 552 pages on every aspect of the issue were recorded by the Senate Com­mittee
on Territories and Insular Affair:s. This was preceded by extensive hearings in May 1943 and November
1943. The chainpan of the committee privately assured exponents of Puerto Rico's independence that Congress
would act during the .present session.
"Self-Determination" Shirks Responsibility
Although the issue is clear for those who will take the trouble to think it through in the light of first
principles, many of our fellow-citizens and, we doubt not, members of Congress, "take refuge in perplexity"
when it comes to the matter of Puerto Rico's permanent political status. Jay Holmes Smith, Chairman of the
American League for Puerto Rico's Independence, wrote in Asia and the Americas, January 1945:
Many Americans are inclined'to feel that they have done their duty when they have agreed
that Puerto Rico should have the right of self-determination. Certainly we must in no way
thrust our will upon the Puerto Rican people. But we can at no time abdicate our joint
• responsibility to work for the solution which we believe will be best for all concerned-Puerto
Rico, the United States ·and the world.
"Self-determination" as a slogan has come to have a bad odor among subject peoples
the world over. Idealistically espoused in the Wilsonian era, it got nowhere fast, for it
overlooked the fact that in any concrete situation the business of changing a political relationship
must be a mutual one. Self-determination thus becomes a generous-sounding slogan which
tends to encourage the people of an imperialistic 'nation to postpone the facing of their share
of this mutual responsibility. It also throws on the subject people quite unfairly the onus of
any lack of unity i'n their ranks while they are still victims of all of the divisive pressures of
exploitation.
MeanwlUle, Americans must be doing their share of grappling with the question of
whether the ultimate relationship of Puerto Rico to us should be one of statehood or independ­ence.
Many of us are convinced that for Puerto Rico "statehood" is not desirable. Shall we
go on adding territories to the "Colossus of the North"? We believe in a world federation
of free peoples, but not in the further aggrandi~ement of the "Big Three." The lack of
cultural affinity with the United States is a most serious barrier.
Ruth M. Reynolds, Secretary of the League, has further elaborated the argument against statehood:
Weare opposed to statehood for Puerto Rico because we feel that our own nation
should be geographically and culturally one. If we were to enter upon a program of expansion
that would include Cuba, Haiti, Santo Domingo, Mexico, and Central America, it would be
logical to include Puerto Rico also as a state. No such program would be tolerated for an
instant by Latin America and none of our statesmen would propose it. More reasonable
would it be to seek to incorporate Cuba or Mexico, adjacent to us geographically and no
further removed from us in speech, tradition, and natural economic interests than Puerto
Rico, h.undreds of miles farther away.
The fact tha.t we took Puerto Rico fort.y-eight years ago and have held her by military
force does not make statehood a proper solution. Such incorporation would mean that her
people would have to abandon their. own language and customs and go "Yankee". It would
mean the permanent protection of the large land-holding corporations that h.ave impoverished
Puerto Rico. It would mean the permanent protection of those who now enjoy an industrial
monopoly market in Puerto Rico. It would mean permanent injury to what confidence Latin "
America now has in our good-neighbor protestations. Latin America, which has always con­sidered
Puerto Rico the test case of our intentions throughout the hemisphere, and whose
parliamentary bodies and international conferences ,have year after year petitioned our govern-ment
for recognition of the independence of Puerto Rico and for the release of her political
prisoners, would regard such a step as a sinister warning rather than as an act of good­neighborliness.
Dr. Smith continues, in Asia am the Americas:
We suggest that Puerto Rico might playa significant role in helping to create a West
Indian Federation ,a.nd in helping to lead it into that world federation of free peoples. Encourag­ing
statehood will drive a wedge into this attractive natural development.
We pledge ourselves to work for the most adequate economic reparations of the most
constructive sort to despoiled Puerto Rico. We repudiate the implication that we who work for
Puerto Rican independence want simply to cast this people aside. In the act of- Congress for
the recognition of her independence, economic reparations must be offered to Puerto Rico,
a free nation, by treaty or trade agreement.
It has been shown that uncertainty as to future political status also acts as a deterrent to industrial~ation,
as investment tends to be timid in the face of an undefined political status.
Political Competence of Puerto Ricans
The political maturity ~d competence of the Puerto Rican people are beyond dispute. President Roose·
velt's statement that there is no question "of the Puerto Ricans' ability now to administer their own affairs"
is even truer today. Co-Chairman Taussig of the. Anglo·American 'Caribbean Commission is reported to have
said concerning a Caribbean conference of two years ago that the Puerto Rican delegation was' head and shoul-
/
ders above that of any other country. The legislative record of the Insular Legislature in recent years, led by
the dominant Popular Party, will not suffer by comparison with that of the Congress of the United States. The
quality of Puerto Rican political thinking is indicated in the following first paragraphs of a "Declaration of the
Puerto Rican Pro-Independence Congress," issued at the time of the San Francisco Conference of the United
Nations.
/At a time when the guns have been silenced and the blood has ceased to flow in Europe,
the solution of the political problem of Puerto Rico is being fully examined by the Congress of
the United States of America.. .
While the United Nations are building in San Francisco an international organization
designed to control narrow self-interest and ambition in order to prevent aggression and
create a world in which peace and civilization will be guaranteed, Puerto Rico has arrived at
the !post important step of its history. Faced with this reality, the Co'ngress for the Independence
of Puerto Rico desires to make this statement to our people, appealing to their indisputable
maturity of thought-a product of their suffering, their collective difficulties, their long history
of political domination throughout many generations, their spirit of peace, and their efforts
toward making a reality, through democratic processes, of their desires and their destiny.
Efforts to Move Congress
The history of efforts to p;od the United States Congress into action to redeem our broken pledges is a
long one-and an alarming one from the standpoint of political conscience.
Puerto Rican efforts to cash in on American pledges began soon after our "liberation" of the island..in
1898. From 1904 the Unionist Party agitated for independence. In 1919, as we have mentioned, Felix Cordova
Davila, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, emboldened by the declared aims of World War I, made a
speech in the United States House of Representatives pleading for a resolving of the question c:#" status. We
have seen how the Nationalist Party formed in 1923 has struggled uncompromisingly for independence against
fearful odds. All political. parties of Puerto Rico since then have had to reckon with the issue of her permanent
political status.
In February 1943 the Senate and House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, by unanimous vote, resolved
"to lay before the President and the Congress of the United States of America the right of the people of Puerto
Rico to end the colonial system of government and to decide democratically the permanent political status of
Puerto Rico as expeditiously as possible, immediately if feasible." (Italics ours. l.H.S.)
In the same month that this forthright demand for a speedy resolving of the issue was unanimously passed
by both houses of the Puerto Rican Legislature, the American Governor, Rexford G. Tugwell, wrote one of the
most sensationally frank criticisms of his own government ever to come from such an official. He declared that
the people of Puerto Rico were no better off than when we took them over nearly a half-century ago. He
added an indictment of the unconcern of Congress by st ating that we have no settled policy regarding Puerto
Rico, but have simply been drifting.
More than three years ago President Roosevelt sent a special message to Congress urging enactment of a
bill granting a larger measure of self-government to Puerto Rico. The bill was shelved in the House.
Nine months ago President Truman in a special message to Congress Urged that action be taken soon to
settle the issue. In his State of the Nation address Mr. Truman reiterated that request, and in a message to
the Caribbean Conference he repeated his hope that Congress would act.
Previous Efforts of the League
The American League for Puerto Rico's Indep endence is petitioning the United Nations only after it
has repeatedly endeavored to awaken the American people and their government to this moral issue. On March
23, 1945 the Chairman of the League addressed the following letter to Edward R. Stettinius, Secretary of State:
Mr. Edward R. Stettinius
Secretary of State,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Secretary,
As Chairman of the American League for Puerto Rico's indepe'ndence, it is my duty
to bring to your attention that which is of great strategic importance as you approach the
United Nations Conference at San Francisco as head of the American delegation.
The President and the State Department have reaffirmed the promise of the Atlantic
Charter to the subject peoples of the world. This has been done in the face of a dangerously
growing cynicism regarding the sincerity of that declaration. There are many of our fellow­Americans
who feel that it would revive that international confidence without which there can
be no world security if the Government of the United States were to expedite legislation for
the indepe'ndence of Puerto Rico to the end that she might, even yet, be represented at the
United Nations Conference. I believe, with a growing number of Americans, that as India
is the acid test of the sincerity of the British Government as a champion of world democracy,
so Puerto Rico is the touchstone of ours.
You have recently played a key role in the conference of the American nations in Mexico
City. Perhaps you haNe not realized the extent to which our treatment of Puerto Rico has been
a factor in our relations with Latin America. An impressive volume of petition has been
addressed to our Government by the most eminent bodies of Lati'n America for the independence
of Puerto Rico and the release of her political prisoners. These include the legislatures of
several of the largest Latin American nations, the Second Constitutional Convention of Cuba
in 1942, presided over by the present head of the Cuban Government, President Grau San
Marti.n, and any number of t.he strongest unofficial bodies of every sort.
The voice of Puerto Rico has recently spoken unmistakably for her independence. It was
my privilege, as Chairma.n of the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence, to testify
on March 7 on the Tydings Bill for Puerto Rico's Independence before the Senate Committee
on Territories and Insular Affairs. Impressive was the cable read by Senator Tydings, signed
by a majority of the members of both houses of the Puerto Rican Legislatures as follows: .
In accordance with the prevaili'ng feeling in favor of full sovereignty for Puerto
Rico we most sincerely endorse your bill with necessary provisions securing just economic
relations between United States and Puerto Rico.
Does it not appeal to your sense of statesmanship in this historic hour to think of going
to San Francisco armed with the moral weapo'n of a clear stand on the issue of Puerto Rico's
independence by the Government of the United States?
May I request you, Sir, to grant me an appointment to discuss this matter more fully?
If this could be arranged to take place before I plan to lea'V'e for a tour of the West Coast on
March 30, I should greatly appreciate it. If, however, this is not possible for you, I should
appreciate the chance to come at your convenience.
Respectfully yours,
Jay Holmes Smith.
Although the responsibility rests upon Congress, it is well known that the Administration can make 3.
strong or a weak effort for legislation, depending upon how important it considers it to be.
On July 21, 1945 the League issued a condemnation of the Puerto Rican Plebiscite Bill (S. 1002), con­cocted
by a committee of Puerto Rican collaborationists in the spirit of appeasement of Yankee imperialism. The
League's expose was addressed especially to the members of the appropriate House and Senate committees.
Pointing out that the bill provided for Puerto Ricans' choosing between bogus alternatives: a dependent "indepen­dence",
a dominated "dominion status", and a visionary statehood, we observed:
The framers of this bill apparently seek to drive a bargai'n with a new Yankee imperialism
which they seem to envisage. We of the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence,
representing a cross section of liberal America, resent the assumption that our settlement of
the weighty issue of our ultimate relationship to Puerto Rico will be on so cynical a basis as
this bill implies. It assumes that we will require Puerto Rico to barter away her birthright
of full fre~dom by giving the military -and naval forces of the United State.s perpetual control
of Puerto Rico in return for our continuing to treat her as "a perpetual economic colony", as
the Puerto Rican Congress for Independence describes it in its own condemnuion of this bill.
The fact is that we owe Puerto Rico the most adequate measure of reparation for taking
her by invasion in 1898, in what was declared to be a war of liberation, and permitting American
i'nterests to loot her and tragically dislocate her economy. More than that, we owe her the
most intelligent, good-neighborly cooperation in the intere~t of her permanent economic recon­struction.
But most of all, we owe to Puerto Rico, ourselves, and the world the sincerest imple­mentation
of our profession to champion the sacred cause of full freedom for all mankind.
The Congress for Independence in Puerto Rico did a masterful job in the island of exposing the Plebis­cite
Bill as a fraud.
The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence despatched a letter to the President on September
5, 1945 commending him for his message to Congress on Puerto Rico's freedom and urging him to throw his
influence back of the Tydings Bill for Puerto Rico's Independence (S.227) and not the Plebiscite Bill (S.1002).
In the hearings of March and May 1945 on the Tydings Bill before the Senate Committee on Territories
and Insular Affairs the League offered extensive testimony for independence as the only valid solution of this
perennial issue, and urged spee9Y action.
Latin American Concern
On the climactic day of Pan-American Week, April 14, 1945, the League issued a statement drafted by
its Secretary, Miss Reynolds, which we quote in part:
Simon Bolivar, father of Pa'n-Americanism, worked for an America made up solely of
mutually independent republics, free from European domination and working out together a
pattern of neighborly cooperation that would be a torchlight of freedom for the world. At
the head of an international army of Latin Americans, this Great Liberator early in the
ni'neteenth century freed one nation after another from Spanish rule a.nd set up in them a
republican form of government. His early death cut short his program of emancipation, and
to this day the Guianas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the British West Indies have
never come into the American fraternity of independent nations.
The United States, Bolivar thought, should form an integral part of this Pan-American
brotherhood. He recogniz.ed the difficulties arising from differences of language and culture,
but he had faith that the ideal of freedom for all, held in common by citiz.ens of both .American
continents and of the neighboring islands, could knit all of America together in mutual respect
and cooperation that would prove to the world that nations large and small can share a hemi&'
phere without friction.
Bolivar's dream of inter-American community has never been realiz.ed, due in no small
degree to the role the United States has played in Latin America. Our nation has become, since
Bolivar's time, a mighty military and economic world power. Subject to all the temptations
of wealth and siz.e, we have i'ntervened with military force or with economic warfare wherever
necessary to further our interests or to protect American investments. Our present protestations
of good-neighborliness and our sincere desire for post-war hemispheric solidarity will be unavail­ing
unless we promptly undo our imperialistic mistakes of the past half-century and make it
very clear that we are really through with a program of intervention and economic control.
The touchstone of our real intention, in Latin American minds, has long been our rela­tionship
to Puerto Rico.
If]
And now we have come to one of the most serious aspects of this issue. Latin 1}mericans cannot forget
that the United States is the only country in this hemisphere that holds a sister natipn ir: subjection. Therefore
a very great number of the most responsible bodies of Latin America, official and non-official, have petitioned
the Government of. the United States, especially during the past decade, for the independence of Puerto Rico
and the liberation of her Nationalist leaders imprisoned in the United States. A partial list follows:
Senate of Argentina, 1936
Pan-American People's Congress, Buenos Aires, 1936
Pan-American Women's Peace Congress, Buenos Aires, 1936
World PEN Congress, Buenos Aires, 1936
Spanish-American Press Congress of Chile, 1937
First Pan-American Caribbean Congress, Havana, 1939
Pan-American Congress of Writers and Artists, held in Mexico, 1939-1940
World Peace Congress Against Fascism, Mexico City, 1940
House of Deputies of Chile, 1941
Pan-American Labor Congress of the Confederation of Latin American Workers, Havana,
1941
Second Constitutional Convention of Cuba, 1942
Chamber of Deputies of Cuba, 1943
Confederation of Trade Unions of Latin America, Mexico City, 1943
Legislature of Guatemala, 1945.
Does not this constitute a weight of concern throughout Latia America which neither the United Na­tions
nor the Congress of the United States may longer ignore? Yet this united, outraged voice of Latin
America falls on deaf ears, and Congress adds insult to injury by announcing that it !las no time to right this
wrong of half a century and to redeem its country's honor.
Not IINo Time" But No Conscience!
During recent years the United States Senate has found time to stage several of the most no~orious fili,
busters in the history of demagoguery. It has indulged in such within this very year. Within this month in
which the people of Puerto Rico have been told that there is no time to redeem our broken pledges to them,
Congress has demonstrat~d its ability to rush through in ninety minutes legislation that is as questionable as
the Puerto Rican Independence bill is clear in its moral imperative. Even while this appeal to the United Na­tions
was being written, one United States Senator was allowed to kill more time than proper consideration
of the bill for Puerto Rico's Independence would have required, in a filibuster against price control in behalf
of the selfish interests in his own state, reckless of the effect upon the country as a whole and upon our
world famine relief commitments. The basic trouble with Congress on this issue has been not a lack of time but
a lack of concern, a lack of conscience.
When a powerful nation thinks it can ignore its big sins against small neighbors it has become a men'
ace to itself and to the world. No "Good Neighbor" pretense can save it from being so regarded.
This petition is a belated earnest of an awakened conscience on the part of the American people. It
is a step in the only direction that offers hope to a still belligerent world-the confessions of the sins of one's
own nation in the interest of swift restitution, that the vicious circle of exploitation and war may be broken
and that the Atomic Age may yet mean a new era of freedom and abundance for all.
The following is a partial list of members of the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence:
Devere Allen, Editor, Worldover Press; Dean Julia Allen, Berea College; Carleton Beals,
authority on Latin America; Dr. Mary Mcleod Bethune, President, National Congress of
Negro Women; Dr. Algernon Black, President, Ethical Culture Society: Pearl S. Buck, author
and Chairman, India Famine Emergency Committee; Dorthy Canfield Fisher, author; Dr. Cecil
E. Hinshaw, President, William Penn College; Paul Hutchinson, Managing Editor, 'The
Christian CentuTY; Kirby Page, author and lecturer; A. Philip Randolph, President, Brotherhood
ef Sleeping Car Porters, AFL.; Victor G. Reuther, United Auto Workers, CIO.; Lillian Smith,
author; Ernest Fremont Tittle, mtnister, Chicago; Willard S. Townsend, United Transport
Workers Union, CIO.; Richard J. Walsh, publisher, and Editor of Asia and the Americas.
(Organizations are named only for identification)

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

In the United Nations The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence vs. The United States of America THE AMERICAN LEAGUE FOR PUERTO RICO'S INDEPENDENCE ( INCORPORATED) BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. RACHEL DAVIS DUBOIS REV. DONALD HARRINGTON A. PHILIP RANDOLPH DR. J. HOLMES SMITH RICHARD J. WALSH The Hon. Trygve Lie Secretary-General of the United Nations New York, N. Y. " J. HOLMES SMITH. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. REYNOLDS. SECRETARY PHONE LEHIGH 4-9761 2013 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK 35. N. Y. July 22, 1946 My dear Sir: The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence, through its Board of Directors, respectfully re­quests you to lay before th~ United Nations for appropriate action its complaint that the Congress of the United States has been grossly negligent in continuing, after forty-eight years, to hold in political and military subjec' tion the people of Puerto Rico. This is perhaps the first instance of citizens of a great power appealing to the United Nations to take action critical of the domination of their own nation over another. All of the members of the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence are" citizens of the United States usually described as liberals. None of us is a Puerto Rican. We are moved to this extraordinary step by the fact that the pleas of President Roosevelt and President Truman, the unanimous demand of th~ Legislature of Puerto Rico, the formal petitions of a great number of the weightiest Latin American bodies, official and unofficial, and various other voices including that of our own League, have failed to move the Congress of the United States to enc! its imperialistic regime over the 2,100,000 Puerto Ricans. We are also emboldened to make this appeal to the' United Nations by the conviction that the decision in congressional circles not to act thIS year on the issue of Puerto Rico's political status is symptomatic of one of the most sinister factors in the international situation. There is no greater menace to the peace of the world in this perilous Atomic Age than the combination of naive self,righteousness and exercise of power over others which characterizes so much of our nation's foreign relations today. For: that reason we appeal through you, Sir, directly to the United Nations, as we have appealed and will continue to appeal through all available channels to the conscience of our own America. We charge that the treatment of Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United States is in violation of the United Nations Charter. FIRST, it is contrary to the purposes set forth in the Preamble to the Charter, namely, "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of interna' tional law can be maintained" and "to develop friendly relations among nfitions based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples." We charge, and shall undertake to show in the appended brief, that the continued domination of Puerto Rico by the United States violates every canon of justice between peoples and tends to weuen the spirit of justice internationally. We contend that this persistel'lt subjection of Puerto Rico violates the obligations arising from the Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain in 1899, the Atlantic Charter, and other pledges given during the past half-century. It thus weakens respect for international agreements. We further hold that the inconsistency of this ty ranny with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and with the Monroe Doctrine weakens confidence in the integrity of this countlY, a factor of vital moment to the peace of the world. SECONDLY, the continued subjection of the people of Puerto Rico violates the "Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories" set forth in Chapter 11, Article 73 of the Charter: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the prese'llt Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive developme'nt of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancemrnt. We charge, and shall undertake to show, that by its gross neglect in this matter for many years, including the period since its adherence to the United 'Nations Charter, the United States Congress has failed to "accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost ... the well,being of the inhabitants" of Puerto Rico "and, to this end to develop self,government, to take due account of the political aspirations" of the people of Puerto Rico, "and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions" according to their "stage of advancement." We shall submit abundant evidence to show that there can be no excuse on the grounds that the "stage of advancement" of the people of Puerto Rico does not warrant their self,govern' ment; there can be no doubt of their political maturity and competence. The United States Congress has not fulfilled the provisions of point (a) above, V:;ith reference to "due respect for the culture of the people concerned" and their "economic advancement." The nature of our imper' ialism in Puerto Rico has been not. only military and political but also economic and cultural. Furthermore, the American regime in the island, especially during the past decade, has exacted a heavy price for their ·political convictions from the most uncompromising fighters for the independence of Puerto Rico, the Nationalists who, like the patriots of the Indian National Congress, have long refused to acknow' ledge the authority of, or to collaborate with, that foreign domination. It is ot serious moment that the ignoring of the clear implications of the Atlantic Charter and other apressions of the declared aims of the recent war in te rms of freedom for all peoples in a grievous breach of faith with tens of thousands of Puerto Rican veterans who risked their lives in that conflict. We submit 'that th6 urgent current task of the making of the peace, to say nothing of its maintenance, is being handicapped by the failure of the Congress of the United States to liquidate American imperialism in Puerto Rico. 'The United States is the only nation in this hemisphere which continues to hold in subjection a sister nation. It is an ironical fact that Puerto Rico enjoyed a much greater degree of self,government in relation to Spain in 1897 than she does under the United States a half,century later. Consider Resident,Commissioner Piii, era's description of his country's political subjection tad ay. (Brief, page 2) We cannot forbear saying, with a humiliating sense of the extent to which they represent us, that if a spark of the true spirit of liberty had remained in the descendants of Patrick Henry and Thomas. Jefferson who sat in the House of Representatives on March 19 of this year, they would have been stirred to take prompt atoning action by Commissioner Piiiero's reminder of our tyranny. Because there has been the opposite response it is necessary that we bring out into the open something of the history of that tyranny in the ~ope that all sense of justice is not dead in our' own American people and in the United 'Nations. For forty'eight years Puerto Rico has been under a despotism by law of the Unite'd States Congress. This law has degraded, and continues to degrade, the presidency by compelling the Chief Executive to enforce that tyranny. It has corrupted the judiciary by expecting it to find constitutional sanction for that domination. During the decades of our occupation of Puerto Rico, Americans have been known to crusade for the freedom of Cuba, Ireland, Belgium, India, Republican Spain, Armenia, Korea, and many other dominated coun' tries. They have recently expressed grave concern over Iran, Bulgaria, Greece and Indonesia. Indeed, the cases of Iran and Indonesia have claimed considerable attention from the United 'Nations itself. The patriots of Puerto Rico and the friends of freedom and democracy in this country and around the world have a right to expect the United 'Nations to show the same concern in the case of Puerto Rico. Ten years ago the United States Congress enacted legislation for the independence of the Philippines, recently celebrated. India is on the threshold of complete self,government. We are encouraged to believe that, through the good offices of the United 'Nations and through the awakened conscience of America there will come a further triumph of the spirit of freedom in prompt congressional action for the independence of Puerto Rim. jhs,emp Respectfully yours, The American League for Puerto Rico's Independence By ]. Holmes Smith, Chairman. BRIEF In Support of an Appeal to the United Nations by the American League for Puerto Rico's Independence Re, garding the Violation of the United Nations Charter by the United States Through Its Continued Domination of Puerto Rico. An Expression of American Concern The Editor of the 'New Yor1{ 'Times drew attention to the gravity of this matter in an editorial on "Puerto Rico's Status" in the issue of March 11, 1946: The present controversy between Governor Tugwell of Puerto Rico and the insular legislature over the expressed desire of the Puerto Ricans to have a 'Voice in the selection of Mr. Tugwell's successor and their demand for a plebiscite on their future political status call attention anew to the colonial problem facing the United States. In this problem Congress seems to take only a cursory interest. Yet it is one we cannot dodge indefinitely if we are to live up to our best traditions, and if we are to do justice to the peoples who became our wards during our imperialist days at the close of the last century and who now seek the opportunity to decide their o~ destinies. Governor Tugwell's position in vetoing the two biIls--both of which will probably be passed over his veto--is that the Puerto Ricans are only antagoniz.ing Congress and jeopardi:dng their chances for congressional action in taking such positive action to call attention to their -aspirations. This a.ppears to be a realistic and accurate evaluation of the situation. If it is, then it is equally an indictment of Congress. The Editor then mentions the fact that the la te President Roosevelt and President Truman both have addressed special messages to Congress over the last three years urging passage of legislation on this issue. The editorial continues: The question of what we shall do with our colonial empire must seem remote to the average citize'n. But if we ourselves are not aware of it, we may be sure the rest of the world is. We cannot alik other nations to grant independence or autonomy to their colonies if our own Congress is insensitive to the aspira.tion of the people of our possessions. Even a benign rule such as ours has been generally i'n the Philippines, in Puerto Rico, in Guam and in Samoa is not good enough. if it denies to the peoples of our colonies that right to decide their own destinies to which the great majority 'Of the people of this country are whole-heartedly dedicated. Puerto Rico·s Complaint This rare expression of American concern over 0 ur perennial blind'spot evoked a letter to the 'Times from the Hon. Jesus T. Piiiero, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington. Senor Pinero said, in part: Your editorial of Monday, March 11, 1946, on Puerto Rico's Status, turned the spotlight once more again on the desire of 2',000,000 American citizens in Puerto Rico for a voice in the selection of their governor a'nd other public officials, and in the determination of their future political status. You say that the question of what we Americans shall do with our oolonial e~pire must seem remote to the average citizen. Puerto Ricans understand that; they know that Americans living in Nevada are perhapli just as unaware of conditions in Vermont as citizens in Ten'nessee are of conditions in South Dakota. But they are puzzled by the continued protestations of our government in Washington agai'nst the failure of other governments elsewhere situated in the world to give dependent peoples a voice in the selection of their governing officials, when deapite the long sustained demands of Puerto Rican leaders, they as American citizens must accept as their Chief Eecutive a man appointed by the Preside'nt and confirmed by the United States Senate. Puerto Ricans do not vote for President; they have no representative in the Senate; they have a Resident Commissioner in the House, elected by popular vote, who' has a voice but no Yote in Congress . . . Under the Organic Act, an act of Congress which is the Puerto Rica'll constitution and which no Puerto Rican had a voice in accepting or rejecting, the President appoints our Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, and Commissioner of Education ... Presidential appoint' ments, with United States Senate confirmatio'n, make up, also, our insular Supreme Court ... Our bicameral legislature, elected by popular vote, can pass laws which are subject to three forms of veto: first, the l'residentially appointed Governor can veto our laws; second, the legislature then can pass them over his veto by a two,thirds vote, but the Governor can appeat to the President who can kill any bill; and third, if a law on the books should be displeasing to any Member of Congress, that Membt>r can work for its repeal by the Congress-without any voting representative of the Puerto Rican people to oppose such action. A commission of the Puerto Rican Legislature has been in existence for more than a year for the purpose of pressing the issue of Puerto Rico's permanent political status upon the United States Congress. We have been told by a member of the commission that during the dec ade 1935,1944 60% of the bills passed by the Puerto Rican legislature were killed by American veto. I On March 19, 1946, Commissioner Pinero received the unanimous consent required to enable him to speak briefly in the United States House of Representatives. He said: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days two great powers have moved to solve the problems of dependent people. One-1Ja1f of the world's population is made up of dependent peoples under some form of colonial rule. These peoples long have been denied _ a voice in the determi'nation of their destinies. Last week the Republic of France granted to its colonial islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe in the Atlantic, and to the island of Reunion in the Pacific, equal status with the departments of France. About the same time Prime Minister Clement Attlee of Great Britain announced that the people of India would be given the opportunity to decide by majority whether they wished their full independence. or some form of status that would permit them to remain within the British Commonwealth. This great democratic Republic of ours was founded by our forefathers when they decided to end an intolerant rule and become free and independent peoples. Formation of the Thirteen Original States marked the birth of this great sovereign Republic, the United States of America. Ironically, in view of our own origin as a free nation, we today hold '5Overeignty over dependent peoples, all of them American citizens, but denied the rights that American citizenship symbolizes to the rest of the world. We have under our flag second- and third-class citizens. This is not the American way; this continued refusal to grant full equality in sharing the benefits of our traditional American principles of freedom and equality for all is inimical to our way of life as we profess to defend it in our policy toward peoples similarly situated in other parts of the world. Embarrassing Facts The plea of this spokesman of frustrated Puerto Rico apparently fell on ears long deaf to the cry for justice. Congressional leaders have given the excuse that there is no' time this year to take up this issue. But Puerto Ricans cannot forget, as Congress should not, that the history of our imperialism in Puerto Rico runs back no less than forty-eight years. It- is the solemn tru th that "the United States is the only country in the world still holding under its sway a people and a coun try which definitely and unmixedly belongs to western civilization and to a branch of that civilization which is not that of the ruling country." This embarrassing fact was called to our attention by Dr. Salvador Perea, member of the Insular Committee of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, in a memorandum submitted to the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate, April 23, 1945. Our Promises and Declared Political Ideals The United States took Puerto Rico by conquest in 1898. In our war propaganda it was declared that we were liberating Puerto Rico from Spain along with Cuba. General Nelson Miles, leading the United States army of occupation, issued a fulsome proclama tion to the people of the island: "The people of the United States in the cause of liberty, justice, and hum anity ... come bearing the banner of free.dom, inspired by a noble purpose . . . to bring you protection not on ly to yourselves, but to your property, to promote your prosperity, and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our gavernment ... and to give all withiri the control of its military and naval forces the advantages and blessings of enlightened civilization." (Italics ours. J.H.S.) It is repugnant to every ideal expressed in the American Declaration of Independence to think of the United States seizing and maintaining colonies. Furthermore, as the eminent historian, James Truslow Adams, declares in 'The Epic of America, "The Constitution was silent as to any powers to acquire foreign territory and,. if acquired, as to how to administer it. When Jefferson had been confronted with the need for instant decision whether to take the Louisiana Territory when offered or lose it for the nation, he took it, but believ­ing the action to be unconstitutional and with the expectation that an amendment to the Constitution would be made validating it. None ever was, and John Quincy Adams was equally convinced that we had no con' stitt;tional right whatever to incorporate within our Government a foreign sovereign state such as Texas. Both statesmen, and those who believed with them, would appear to have been right, unless the wording of the Con- Ititution may be So stretched as to cover anything under heaven desired by.us." . In 1898 it was recognized that it would be in violation of the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine promulgated by Henry Clay as Secretary of State for th e United States to continue to hold Puerto Rico and make a colony of her. Therefore, in spite of the imperialist urge for ex pansion under the slogan of "manifest destiny" and in .spite of the precedent of imperialist conquest in the Mexican War, there was a definite attempt to cloak the seizure of Puerto Rico with the aspect of temporary guardianship. This was expressed not only in the war propaganda, but also in the Treaty of Paris at the close of the Spanish-American war, which sought to give legal dignity to the conquest. A High-Handed Treaty But this provision of the treaty was patently high-handed because Spain had no legal right to transfer Puerto Rico to any other power. The autonomy charter granted to Puerto Rico by Spain a year before the war distinctly specified that no change in the political re lationship of the two nations could be made without the approval of the Parliament of Puerto Rico. The Parliament, however, was dissolved by the Commander-in­Chief of the occupying forces of the United States th e summer previous to the making of the treaty. Inciden­tally, Senator Brewster of Maine, in the Senate Committee hearings referred to, remarked that "the 'Treaty of Paris violates the Declaration of Independence." Tyranny and Terrorism Tyranny can be maintained only by terrorism, naked or disguised. Especially during the past decade haa the Yankee regime' tried to crush the most uncompromising fighters for freedom in Puerto Rico. Ever 'since the United States entered their homeland in 1898, Puerto Rican patriots have cried aloud for independence. Led.by Munoz Rivera, father of Munoz Marin of the Popular Party now in power, and Jose de Diego, world famous poet, they coined the phrase "within the regime against the re-gime." Like many of the leaders of the present-day Congress for Independence, they accepted government posts, cooperated fully with the invading power, and endeavored to "bore from within". They enjoyed a large popular following, a high degree of governmental tolerance, and little effectiveness. The Nationalist Party arose during the 1920's. It takes the position that the American occupation is illegal, and that therefore the United States has no jurisdiction over Puerto Rico or any Puerto Rican outside